Punjab

Sangrur

MA/18/2014

SANJAY SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD, MAX AUTOS - Opp.Party(s)

HARPAL SINGH

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Misc. Application no. 18      

                                                          Instituted on:  16.07.2014

                                                          Decided on:    28.04.2015

Sanjay Sharma son of Shri Ram Sarup resident of Guru Nanak Colony, H.No.468, Sangrur.

                                                …. Applicant.          

                                         Versus

1.     Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

2.     Anil Kumar Proprietor, Max Auto’s Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

3.     Sukhjiwan Singh s/o Roop Singh, Works Manager, Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.      

      ….Respondents.

 

FOR THE APPLIANT   :           Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate                          

 

FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 :    Shri Navit Puri, Advocate                     

 

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :    Shri Rajesh Garg, Advocate                    

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

ORDER:   

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             This order will dispose of an application filed by the applicant Sanjay Sharma U/s 340 Cr. P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents in view of the order dated 7/3/2014 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.  

2.             In his application, the applicant has stated that on 24/01/2011, he  purchased Swift Dzire VDI car from Max Autos and the said company Max Autos issued him owner  manual and service  booklet which deals with engine oil consumption regarding which the reference is at page no.105 of the said manual. The applicant filed complaint no.868 on 01/11/2011 against the respondents before  this Forum due to some manufacturing in the said car.  The respondents appeared in the said complaint and produced an in complete copy of said manual as Ex.R-39 before this Forum. On 25.06.2012, this Forum  dismissed that complaint while relying upon the said Ex.R-39. It has been further alleged by the applicant that the respondents have obtained order dated 25.06.2012 from this Forum by fraud by producing a fabricated document and false evidence. It has also been alleged  that the applicant sent notice dated 17.08.2012 through Shri Nitesh Gupta Advocate requesting the respondents to supply him complete original of Ex.R-39 but the respondents have not supplied the said documents and gave evasive reply to the said notice and the applicant again sent legal notice dated 6.9.2012 to the respondents but no reply was  given by the respondents to the said notice. The applicant has alleged that  the respondents  fabricated Ex.R-39 and presented the same before this Forum with a malafide intention to cause loss  to the applicant by using said forged and fabricated document before this Forum and have committed  offence punishable U/s 468/471/120-B IPC. The applicant has further alleged that he earlier  also filed similar  application dated 4/3/2013 before this Forum which was sent by this Forum to  the SHO Police Station Sangrur  for investigation vide order dated 6/3/2013. The respondents filed petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. before the  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against  that order dated 6/3/2013 and that petition filed by the respondents  was accepted by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court with  an observations that the court concerned is at liberty  to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 340 of the code. The applicant has prayed for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents.

3.             Notice of the application U/s 340/195 Cr.P.C was served upon the respondents and on receipt of notice, the respondents submitted their detailed reply taking preliminary objections that  the application U/s 195/340 Cr.P.C is not maintainable  and in reply on merit, all the allegations leveled by the applicant in his application have been denied by the respondents.

4.             We have gone through the application U/s 340/195 Cr. P.C. and  the documents on the record. As per allegations leveled by the applicant in his application and as per reply submitted by the respondents, the main  complaint no. 868  dated 1/11/2011 filed by the applicant  before this Forum for alleged deficiency  in service  was dismissed  vide order dated 25/05/2012 and in order dated 25/05/2012, this Forum has not given any finding that the said document Ex.R-39 is a forged or fabricated.

5.             As per allegations leveled by the applicant, the said alleged document Ex.R-39 was forged by the respondents before producing  the same in proceedings before this Forum and the said document was not forged by the respondents when the same was in the custody of this Forum during  the proceedings of said complaint. The question before this Forum is now, whether  this Forum can initiate proceedings U/s 340/195 Cr. P.C. when the said document Ex.R-39 was allegedly forged by the respondents outside the court and was not forged  by the respondents, when the said document Ex.R-39 was in the  custody of this Forum.

6.             The constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case  Iqbal  Singh Marwah and another Vs.  Minakshi Marwah and another reported in 2005(2) RCR Crl.Page No.178 has given following  guidelines to deal with such like cases:-

“B.  Criminal Procedure Code, sections 195 (i) ( b) (ii) and 340- offence with regard to forgery of document- if a document was  forged  and thereafter produced in the court, then aggrieved  party can file a complaint, Bar of sections 195(i) (b) (ii)  will not  apply  and sections 195 (i) (b) (ii) Cr. P.C. would be attracted  only when the offences enumerated in the said provisions have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodial legis.

In the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that if any forged document is tendered in evidence, even then the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b).

7.             As per allegations leveled by the applicant in his application, the said document Ex.R-39 was forged by the respondents before producing  the same before this Forum which shows that the said document Ex.R-39 was not forged by the  respondents  when the said document was in the custody of this Forum. The guidelines  given by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Iqbal  Singh Marwaha Vs.  Meenakshi  Marwaha are fully applicable in this case. This Forum cannot take any action on the application moved by the applicant U/s 195/340 Cr.P.C.  and the application in hand moved by the applicant Sanjay Sharma is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records in due course.

        Announced.

April 28, 2015.

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                 

     Member                    Member                       President

 

BBS/-